The Foreseeable Future

I recently read a column in which the writer was complaining about the phrase "the foreseeable future." He was saying that it makes no sense, because the future is unforeseeable by definition.

I agree that it can be a strange way of expressing something, but I'm not sure that the phrase is always semantically incorrect. Take the following example: "I will not be publishing anything in this space for the foreseeable future."

If, for instance, I were to give up updating this weblog for a few months, because I have plans to travel, or because I am tired of it, or because my computer is broken and I don't know when I will get it back, then the statement is true. For the foreseeable future—meaning the next two or three months, or until whatever temporary hindrance abates— will not be updating my weblog.

But after that, who knows? I'd say that starting from some point a few months down the line, I'd be talking about the unforeseeable future. Perhaps in the unforeseeable future, I will begin publishing again.

Yes, it is a gray area, and the phrase might not make sense at face value. But it is idiomatic, people. I'm a nit-picker myself, but I don't see anything wrong with the phrase.

Here's a King Critical Challenge: find a phrase to replace "for the foreseeable future." And don't give me "for the time being," because that is just as vague.
- posted by Brian @ 4:47 PM

 
George Pataki Must Die Die Die

George Pataki is an opportunistic scumbag. He has never cared for New York City, and it is unfortunate for New Yorkers that he has so much control over the site of the World Trade Center.

Although the design for the site has not been finalized—indeed, the developers and architects are still fighting over it—Pataki has seen fit to dub the tallest structure on the site “Freedom Tower."

Could any name be more base and unimaginative? It is base because it appeals to the same flag-waving instinct that took over the country after the terror attacks. And it is simply unimaginative—it sounds as if there was a contest to name the building and a third-grader won. There will be a memorial at the site; naming the tower with a vague reference to the terror attacks is superfluous. I get the sense that Pataki knows he will likely have little aesthetic control over the actual memorial, so he is leaving his mark where he can.

Speaking of the memorial, Pataki did declare that the “footprints" of the original towers would be left alone. Last I checked, he had no degree in architecture or city planning. That a politician gets to make a decision with such far-reaching implications for the site amazes me.

The Republican National Convention is being held in New York City at the end of next summer. Pataki wants the cornerstone for the so-called Freedom Tower laid by then—he and his fellow Republicans are looking to exploit the death of 2,800 New Yorkers even further. Frankly, it is bad enough that the GOP is holding its convention in New York, but it is downright obscene that they scheduled it to coincide with the three-year anniversary of the terror atrocities.

Where is the outrage? And I know that New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey is a few bricks short of a load, but why hasn’t he weighed in on these matters?

Pataki brandishes his power like a magic wand because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the Trade Center Site. You tell me what is wrong with this scenario: there is a 16-acre site in lower Manhattan over which the City of New York has no control. The Port Authority is a bi-state agency that controls many facets of New York City transportation. How the Port Authority got into speculative real estate is another story (for an excellent explanation, read Divided We Stand by Eric Darton).

The leaders of the Port Authority are appointed by the governors of New York and New Jersey, despite that said governors work in Albany and Trenton, which are 155 and 65 miles from New York City, respectively. The result of this arrangement is that New Yorkers have no way to hold the Port Authority accountable for its actions. If I don’t like what the PA is doing with the airports, or the Hudson River crossings, or the PATH trains, or the PA Bus Terminal, or the Trade Center site, to whom can I voice my dissatisfaction? The governor? Surely, my complaints would fall on deaf ears.

For a few examples of Pataki’s idiocy, read the following excerpts from news stories.

From the New York Times, October 25, 2003:

Gov. George E. Pataki has set Sept. 11, 2006, as the deadline for the topping off, or structural completion of the tower. He said on Thursday that it was "very important that the vision that was enunciated for the master site plan be ultimately what is constructed at ground zero."
...

Mr. [Larry] Silverstein, who met with Mr. Pataki this week, said through a spokesman yesterday, "The governor will get what he called for: a soaring, wonderful, iconic building."

"We have to build this building," Mr. Silverstein was quoted as saying by his spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, "and we have to build it on time."
....................

From the New York Times, October 30, 2003

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Gov. George Pataki on Thursday applied more pressure on key players feuding over rebuilding at the World Trade Center site by setting a series of deadlines and appointing a former U.S. Senator to mediate one of the disputes.

Pataki, who has ultimate authority over what will replace the buildings destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, named Northern Ireland peace deal broker George Mitchell to forge a deal by Dec. 31 between insurers and Deutsche Bank AG over whether its damaged building should be destroyed or repaired.
....

The project has been hindered by several lawsuits and a rift between Childs and Libeskind over the plan's signature "Freedom Tower'' skyscraper, which would be the world's tallest structure at 1,176 feet. The pair reconciled on Tuesday at the insistence of leaseholder Larry Silverstein, and they agreed to produce a consensus design within weeks.

Pataki, who wants a cornerstone laid on the tower in time for the Aug. 2004 Republican Party convention in New York, said in a speech on Thursday he had set a Dec. 15 deadline for its design to go public.

In his speech, Pataki again signaled he wanted a settlement soon in the complex's biggest dispute -- over insurance payouts that will determine how much money is eventually available to reshape the site.

"The insurance proceeds are owed to private individuals, but make no mistake they are held for the public trust,'' Pataki told an Association for a Better New York/Downtown Lower Manhattan Association luncheon. "They are private monies with a public purpose: to help implement our shared vision.''
- posted by Brian @ 5:30 PM